+0
Simone.
---
Ing. Simone Giannecchini
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Founder
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584962313
fax: +39 0584962313
mob: +39 333 8128928
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.
On 22 December 2010 20:36, Andrea Aime wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Mark Leslie wrote:
>>
>> I'm always keen to see enhancements to security features, and this
>> seems a solid step in the right direction. Can I just clarify that
>> backwards compatibility will be handled by wrappin
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Chris Holmes wrote:
> +1 on the GSIP, as long as Mark's backwards compatibility concerns are
> addressed, though I'm pretty sure they are. This sounds like a solid step
> towards an awesome security system.
>
>
Yep yep, definitely want to keep backwards compatib
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> looks like a good idea.
>
> my first thought was how does this relate to GeoXACML - and I see you
> have been thinking about this - is it possible to map out what
> GeoXACML would require and how this proposal supports this? If I was
> an exp
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Mark Leslie wrote:
> I'm always keen to see enhancements to security features, and this
> seems a solid step in the right direction. Can I just clarify that
> backwards compatibility will be handled by wrapping implementations of
> DataAccessManager (the compatib
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Looks good Andrea. +1 with a couple of questions
>
> 1) The only wrinkle I can see is the use of List for
> VectorAccessLimits when used with app-schema xpaths.
>
Ah, yeah, sounds like a good idea. Wondering, is Name good enough?
Does it have
+1 on the GSIP, as long as Mark's backwards compatibility concerns are
addressed, though I'm pretty sure they are. This sounds like a solid step
towards an awesome security system.
Nice paper too, I'll definitely be pointing people to it to explain why all
the proxy projects aren't that great. O
looks like a good idea.
my first thought was how does this relate to GeoXACML - and I see you
have been thinking about this - is it possible to map out what
GeoXACML would require and how this proposal supports this? If I was
an expert in GeoXACML I'd do this myself - but I'd then be in the dark
a
Looks good Andrea. +1 with a couple of questions
1) The only wrinkle I can see is the use of List for VectorAccessLimits
when used with app-schema xpaths.
2) I also wondered about the RasterLimits; do you not need a
ParameterDescriptor in order to define the allowable range (sorry if I am rusty
I'm always keen to see enhancements to security features, and this
seems a solid step in the right direction. Can I just clarify that
backwards compatibility will be handled by wrapping implementations of
DataAccessManager (the compatibility section hasn't been updated from
the template).
--
Mark
+0 here
---
Ing. Alessio Fabiani
Founder / CTO GeoSolutions S.A.S.
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: (+39) 0584 96.23.13
fax: (+39) 0584 96.23.13
mobile:(+39) 349 82.27.000
http://www.geo-solu
Hi,
following up last week mail I prepared a GSIP to improve the
authorization framework
built into the GeoServer catalog:
http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GSIP+57+-+Improving+GeoServer+authorization+framework
Opinions and votes welcomed!
Cheers
Andrea
PS:
Also, at GeoSolutions we spent a bit o
12 matches
Mail list logo
